Gerrymandering is a large part of ‘why’.
May not have seemed like an influence in the early-00s when GWB and Tom Delay were running roughshod over the national scene-- but as a calculated and locked-in feature-- it’s stymied the purpling of Texas as much or moreso than any other factor.
By that token-- it’s been extremely effective at keeping good (D) candidates from even running.
How will the changeover begin?
It’s already started with-- as you mentioned-- Davis’ organizational capabilities.
She hasn’t run a stellar campaign-- but her candidacy is what was needed to kickstart (D) politics again statewide.
In the next 2-4 years the Castro brothers will be making their political splash on the national stage.
That will be a catalyst for many Latinos to become more involved politically.
And third, if HRC runs for POTUS in '16?
She has out-polled all the (R)-clown-car-candidates-- even Ted Cruz-- in Texas-- as recently as 12-18 months ago. (D)s-- will turn out for HRC in TX.
Just 10 years ago-- did you think Houston would elect an openly lesbian mayor in Annise Parker?
Or that Dallas County would elect a gay Sherriff in Lupe Valdez?
Just because you’re not seeing change doesn’t mean it’s not happening.
Nor that the (R) hurdles being thrown up aren’t effective.
Houston has a lesbian mayor; Dallas county elected a lesbian sheriff many years ago. All the major urban areas (D-FW, Austin, San Antonio, Houston) went for Obama in '08 and in '12, as did many of the counties along the Rio Grande.
Texas still isn’t considered even vaguely purple.
There has been change in my lifetime: as I said, the state has gotten more conservative since the '70’s, something I didn’t think was possible. Ted Cruz is not an outlier, he’s the preferred choice of the majority of Texans who vote.
Problem is, too few of them vote, even in the urban areas where all the “liberals” are.
The biggest change in Texas politics in my lifetime has been the shift from Democrats to Republicans; but that shift was merely one of party labels. It wasn’t a fundamental change in political culture.
You can go on expecting one, but wishing doesn’t make it so. As I say, the conservative politicians winning office now are all younger than me, some by decades. The “younger generation” isn’t getting more liberal in Texas, much as I wish it would.
I just keep remembering that when Rick Perry won statewide office the first time, as Ag Commissioner, he defeated Jim Hightower. Perry’s still around; Jim has all but disappeared from Texas politics.
I have great hopes Wendy Davis has finally taught the Democrats how to organize a statewide campaign.
To be fair, they never had to until recently. Electing a Democratic governor meant just putting somebody on the ballot (believe me, we had some empty suits as governors).
Democrats are still trying to figure out how to campaign here, now that their elections are no longer inevitable. Maybe they’ll figure it out, and start winning some offices.
But first they have to overcome the political culture that, for over a century, wouldn’t vote for anyone who wasn’t running for the “right” party. It’s the “yellow dog Democrat” (and this from a yellow dog Democrat) mentality that’s keeping Texans from voting for Democrats now.
Why that persists after the massive population increase (which can’t all be from births alone) is what perplexes me. Then again, culture is a remarkably persistent state of affairs.
33 year Texan here- you are correct. Texas is conservative overall (even when it was voting for Democrats, they were not liberal with a few exceptions) but there will be more Reps in the Lege and DC.
I’m 55 and lived in Texas all my life. My father went to law school with several men who shortly afterward became elected Dems in Texas. One became a TX Supreme Court Justice. One was one of the Texas “Killer Bees” in the late 70’s. Spent a lot of time at Dem Party activities/events/campaign headquarters as a child. Jon is right as far as this election cycle goes. We TX Dems understand that we have a tall hill to climb. TX does have a horrible turnout record in elections. I’m in Harris County. Even though a lot of Dems won countywide races on Pres. Obama’s coattails in 2008,I was appalled at the turnout here. Most of those same Dems lost in 2012. The Obama/Hillary contest generated a lot of enthusiasm here in 2008. HRC won the primary too. I think her candidacy would generate the same enthusiasm here. Depending on what happens next Tuesday,I think a lot of TX Dems are ready to channel more of our activism into state politics and less into national campaign committees and candidates in IA,NH,Montana,Maine etc. who don’t give a flying f**k about TX Dems.
That’s a pretty defeatist attitude for John Stewart and the reaction to it isn’t laughing, it’s groaning.
Voter registration and GOTV drives alone can make a big difference. Since Texas is a low turnout state especially. Everyone knows that the more people that vote, the better it is for the Democrats.
The state may be conservative but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t apathetic and conservative. Texas liberals can win on motivation and by realizing that winning is doable if they all stick together and simply vote.
Really.
Where do you think the ‘purpling’ starts?
Dime Box? Wichita Falls? Midland-Odessa?
In the major metro areas.
I’m in HouTX
So, no, it won’t happen in the rural counties and towns-- but it can happen top-down in statewide offices.
And it starts emanating from the population centers.
I really don’t know where you’re getting the idea that youth here aren’t more liberal than their parents.
I think just the opposite from teens and 20-somethings I’m in contact with.
It starts with the ideal that the young people I know well enough–
don’t harbor overt racism in their perspectives on life.
Thinking it can’t happen? Doesn’t mean it won’t.
So, you can keep on thinking it won’t. Or do the things that might make it so.
I’m getting weary of the meme that demographics are going to flip Texas. Demographics are going to change Texas but not necessarily in a way that many so-called “progessives” are hoping. Hispanics and other minorities are not cannon fodder that can be marshalled to advance the obsessions of upper-middle class white people.
You want to ride the demographic wave? Try nominating some Hispanic candidates.
The Wendy Davis campaign is a train wreck. I guess her campaign is about abortion rights although you wouldn’t know that from her campaign. Her TV ads consist of relentlessly negative attacks against her opponent. I get it – Greg Abbott is not a nice guy – but what is Wendy Davis’ platform? I’ve seen one ad where she actually spoke directly to the camera. She began with a vague statement about the importance of education to her personal success, then she launched into an attack on Abbott, without ever mentioning what she would do differently. And then there is her weird, droopy-eyed, deadpan delivery which is devoid of any human warmth. Davis is out of her depth and she has no idea how to connect to the voters.
There is a lesson here – don’t nominate someone just because the gals on MSNBC go gaga over a bit of political theater. Cute pink sneakers won’t take you far in a political campaign.
Very few things in life are binary. Just because “Republican scorched Earth policies are a train wreck” it does not follow that the agenda of so-called “progressives” is automatically better.
We are in a class war and the interests of upper-middle class, college-educated white people don’t necessarily align with the interest of middle class and working class people of modest means. I want to see a return to traditional liberal values – socially moderate and economically populist. “Progressive” is not necessarily liberal; in fact there are many aspects of progressivism that are outright illiberal.
But in this case? U.S. politics?
I would argue that there is a binary truth-- to which party actually has the best interests of the country at heart.
I can agree that liberal and progressive are different stripes on the same animal.
That the core values of each are fairly parallel.
I tend to rest on the cusp-- if you consider progessivism to be more ‘left’ than liberal.
And while the balance between the two can be debated-- the country at-large is nowhere close to being liberal.
That moving the country toward liberalism is a step toward progressivism.
Republicanism today? Is an illness. Corrupt, greedy, compassionless.
I hesitate to call it racist-- as I know many ®s I would not categorize that way.
But ® pols? I can call most every one of them racists or bigots with no compunction.
The worst aspects of human nature are reveled by conservatives.
For money, privilege, and power.
For me? Comparison of our 2 political parties-- is a binary one.
Once it becomes unitary? Then I’d be happy to discuss the merits of the subsets of (D) ideology.
